Continuing the streak of posting about the climate (or at least about the weather): Hail Fail.

On Wednesday afternoon, when hail fell on Forney, photos came in showing hail nearly the size of a golf ball.

As photos came in to isee@nbcdfw.com, one photo caught our attention. The photo, from “Tyler,” clearly shows ice cubes from a refrigerator. We especially liked the scattering of ice cubes on the ground. Nice touch!

More concern from serious scientists regarding, not the whole idea of man-made climate change, but the legitimate degree of uncertainty that still exists in the amount of change directly attributed to man’s influence.

Do we want to fundamentally change the dynamics of world economies based upon scientific theory that still contains a reasonable level of doubt?

The ramifications demand utter transparency and open-mindedness in pursuing the best answer.

The momenteum of these erroneous findings seems to be gathering speed. The portion of the full UN committee document that is in serious question may still be a fairly small subset of the total citations listed, but now its becoming a perception issue with the broader public, which, in turn, threatens the political will of more countries to fully commit to the kind of huge financial obligations involved.

When combined with the e-mail fiasco and the implied data manipulation, a real credibility issue comes into focus, regardless of where the bulk of any untainted data may point.

This guy presents a very personal and reasonable case that people on both sides of the debate should be able to relate to. The current momenteum is not in favor of what has been the prevailing opinion. People are going to get more and more territorial about their views, and grind any progress toward ultimate understanding to a halt, unless those who are convinced of the large scale of man-made global warming can replicate results and/or “show their math” to full professional scrutiny.

Although the latest revelation gets tagged with the tiresome “-gate” title, this one is significant for two reasons, its a flawed study that has been highlighted in IPCC’s summary report, and it has caused a former chair of the IPCC to state that changes have to be made in the validation process or all (public and political) credibility in the study may be lost.

This is obviously well beyond some scientists in a minimally related field of study spinning conspiracy delusions. You now have well-regarded and credentialed scientists doubting some of the conclusions made by the IPCC, and the process used to verify the information.

The British press is sure hot (pun intended) on these sudden weaknesses in the evidence in the “softer” science of applying any warming tends to actual societal/geographical impacts. Now, some of the temperature data is being called into question by none other than the former head of the CRU, aka the agency from which sprang the whole e-mail climate-gate controversy.